I still love Apple despite this moronic move. What makes it really funny is that all our Apple products are MADE IN CHINA.... the biggest emitter of CO2 on the freaking planet. So the statement or move is kind of rich since the anti-business cap n trade bill that will bend us all over to the tune of several THOUSAND DOLLARS a year..... won't have any effects on their production even if it were to go through. However, it would make it harder for us to buy their great computers.

I'll stand behind the Chamber at this point. A group that I've seen as completely useless with both of my own businesses.... however.... this is a good move on their part.

Think I'm full of crap? Pull your head out of your collective BUTTS people if you are believing this global warming bullcrap. I'll be the first to admit it.... I used to buy into it myself. But it's a LOAD OF CRAP... all designed as a means to screw us all out of more of our money.

Before you start arguing with me.... try EDUCATING YOURSELF.

Want to find some awesome information made by real, ACTUAL scientists and not some moron blowhard on one of the networks.... let me recommend this site to you.

SPPI, The Science & Public Policy Institute. It was started by Lord Christopher Monkton... he used to be the science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Check out their CO2 report for Aug.... it's a whopping 33 pages of REAL INFORMATION..... that you need to understand.

If you're smart enough to READ..... you're smart enough understand what they're saying and maybe just come to the same conclusion I did after looking at REAL SCIENCE... and not an emotionally charged joke like Al Gore, who I think couldn't pass a 3rd grade basic science class or test.

Stop grabbing your ankles America..... Your ignorance is not bliss, it's a way to get SCREWED by people who really don't have your best interests at heart.

Use your BRAIN.... not your EMOTIONS..... and learn.

Z

From a quick bit of research, this doesn't look like a very good source.
Christopher Monckton has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications.
Furthermore, the SPPI website does not disclose any of it's funding. Something that always makes me skeptical.

In the period cited, less than a millenium ago, the earth was much warmer than it is now. What was that about manmade global warming again?

...

Yes, I've seen those. There are other factors to consider. Relevant to your point, I suggest these simplified tutorials here and here. Be sure to read the linked background information. I can provide much more detailed and technical information when you're ready.

I just think it's quite sad that something that should be 100% about science and the subsequent findings has turned into this right wing - left wing drivel. If you think it's cyclic and it's going to do what it's going to do regardless of what we do you're a right winger; if we're the source of all evil in the world and we're going to burn ourselves into the ground you're a left winger. Seriously, WTF? Let's just be honest with ourselves here - there is plenty of data (some slanted, some not) on both sides of this SCIENTIFIC argument. This really shouldn't be up to political parties to pit us against our neighbors.

We deride Bush for going to war on intelligence that, at the time, the CIA said was 100% accurate and yet here we are yet again b!tching amongst each other over something that doesn't even have 100% agreeance from the scientific community. I think we should learn from our previous mistakes and if we're going to take drastic action even if we're 100% sure on something we should at least double check the results. The last time we didn't double check we got ourselves stuck in a war - I'd like to think we're all (well, mostly all) level headed enough to think that you shouldn't go making policies without the evidence to back them up.

Sustainability studies are expensive and I can't imagine the time, money, manpower, and energy wasted by Apple coming up with their carbon footprint data.

As it has been mentioned many times in this thread, all of Apple's stuff is made in China, the largest polluter on the freaking planet. At one time within the last two years, they were averaging a new coal power plant every 18 days going into operation. Their coal plants have to have the scrubbers onsite but they do not have to work. They just have to be there.

SJ and Apple need to check themselves. Either you have a value or you don't and no one is going to respect this for a "value" stance.

This is America and if Apple wants to burn diesel 24/7 for no good reason fine. But don't act like you are all concerned when you obviously are not fully committed to taking your stance with great serious and not just where it helps you out.

Engineering and scientific advance have given us transport by land and air, the capacity and need to exploit fossil fuels which had lain unused for millions of years. One result is a vast increase in carbon dioxide. And this has happened just when great tracts of forests which help to absorb it have been cut down.
For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.
Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gasescarbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbonswhich has led some[fo 4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980sthough we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!

September 27, 1988

I'm paraphrasing, but I remember her saying, "you can't take millions of tons of carbon from down there, put it up there and not have something happen".

From a quick bit of research, this doesn't look like a very good source.
Christopher Monckton has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications.
Furthermore, the SPPI website does not disclose any of it's funding. Something that always makes me skeptical.

Regarding your first point, it's important to underscore the importance of scientists who are climatologists on these issues. Lots of deniers, contrarians, those more interested in proving their own points or PR offensives for special interests, etc. emerge without suitable credentials (or are gladly willing to be bought). Those with agendas are inherently magnetically attracted to the former for purposes of confirmation bias and are simply not interested.

It has been getting cooler since 2001 and the long term weather forecast is for cooler temperatures for the next ten years. Doesn't phase the manmade global warming advocates, just a blip they say.

There is no scientific consensus on manmade global warming, man has had little success at predicting weather apart from a few days or weeks at best. Predictions of manmade global warming are based upon computer models, the input data for such models is debatable and unverifiable, tweak input data a little and the results are easily tailored to suit agendas.

The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body, part of the UN whose stated aim is one world government.

It has been getting cooler since 2001 and the long term weather forecast is for cooler temperatures for the next ten years. Doesn't phase the manmade global warming advocates, just a blip they say.

There is no scientific consensus on manmade global warming, man has had little success at predicting weather apart from a few days or weeks at best. Predictions of manmade global warming are based upon computer models, the input data for such models is debatable and unverifiable, tweak input data a little and the results are easily tailored to suit agendas.

The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body, part of the UN whose stated aim is one world government.

Now, I think you're being intentionally dense. You're conflating climate with weather and sense with nonsense. Not that you care, but just so that I'm clear to you.

I still love Apple. What makes it really funny is that all our Apple products are MADE IN CHINA.... the biggest emitter of CO2 on the freaking planet. So the statement or move is kind of rich since the anti-business cap n trade bill that will bend us all over to the tune of several THOUSAND DOLLARS a year..... won't have any effects on their production even if it were to go through. However, it would make it harder for us to buy their great computers.

I'll stand behind the Chamber at this point. A group that I've seen as completely useless with both of my own businesses.... however.... this is a good move on their part.

Think I'm full of crap?

Before you start arguing with me.... try EDUCATING YOURSELF.

Want to find some awesome information made by real, ACTUAL scientists and not some moron blowhard on one of the networks.... let me recommend this site to you.

READ..... you're smart enough understand what they're saying and maybe just come to the same conclusion .

Stop grabbing your ankles Your ignorance is a way to get SCREWED by people who really don't have your best interests at heart.

Use your BRAIN.... not your EMOTIONS..... and learn.

Z

Do you really think that with your adolescent tirade you change anything?
Do you really think that one website is absolutely right with what it publishes?
It's like giving a student the bible and tell him it's all we know about religion!
Fortunately, we look at a majority of scientists that somehow came to a conclusion that we have a climate change. Then again, there is a reason why they call it the "silent majority" - because the ignorant always are the ones who scream the loudest.

That's it folks - politics to the politicians. They don't seem to know anything better.
This is a tech site. Let's keep it that way. I come here to read exciting news about the field I love.
I don't come here to have perfectly nice and logical thinking techies turn into grumpy old men.
Please. It's enough that we have to deal with the occasional Balmer here.

I just think it's quite sad that something that should be 100% about science and the subsequent findings has turned into this right wing - left wing drivel. If you think it's cyclic and it's going to do what it's going to do regardless of what we do you're a right winger; if we're the source of all evil in the world and we're going to burn ourselves into the ground you're a left winger. Seriously, WTF? Let's just be honest with ourselves here - there is plenty of data (some slanted, some not) on both sides of this SCIENTIFIC argument. This really shouldn't be up to political parties to pit us against our neighbors.

I agree that it is ridiculous that such important issues become reduced to right/left rants. In that context, people become emotionally involved in their "side" regardless of what the evidence shows.

Quote:

We deride Bush for going to war on intelligence that, at the time, the CIA said was 100% accurate

Well, this is a bit of a revisionist position. The Bush administration was CLEARLY spoiling for an Iraq war and were clearly telling analysts to tell them what they wanted to hear. Look at the whole report on Iraq's searching for nuclear material. When an Wilson concluded that there was no truth to the alarming claims, the administration was so outraged, they outed his undercover CIA wife (repeatedly). See Valerie Plame. Of course, Wilson was right but...
Heck, I wasn't (and still am not) a specialist on mideast affairs, but it didn't make sense to me on the face of things at the time that Iraq was working with Bin Laden. Bin Laden and his fundamentalists hated rulers like Sadam almost as much as the US. There is no defense for Sadam (murderous despot and all) but women were educated in his country and the ruling class was largely secular. Just because they both said they hated America is hardly evidence that they were working together.

Quote:

and yet here we are yet again b!tching amongst each other over something that doesn't even have 100% agreeance from the scientific community. I think we should learn from our previous mistakes and if we're going to take drastic action even if we're 100% sure on something we should at least double check the results.

Yeah. It only took about 50 years to get scientists to agree that Smoking was dangerous. And it still isn't 100%. I read something last year where a scientists were theorizing that people who are predisposed to get lung cancer are also more likely to get addicted to smoking. The bottom line? They would have gotten cancer regardless of whether or not they started smoking...
So forget 100% Would you take 70%? 80%? We may be there already...

That's just the right thing to do. United States of Amnesia is so corrupt in every way just to make a buck. One day, all these millionaires and billionaires will perish with everyone else, and none is taking his/her money when they die.

Shame on US Chamber of Commerce. How can thinking people be so foolish because of money? It is incomprehensible how dumb these American companies can be. Greed and corruption, nothing else.

Apple has done the right! I support it and I will continue to patronize only companies that are doing the same.

Yes, I've seen those. There are other factors to consider. Relevant to your point, I suggest these simplified tutorials here and here. Be sure to read the linked background information. I can provide much more detailed and technical information when you're ready.

You should seek more diverse sources of information, biological diversity is not the only kind of diversity that is good. But even reading New Scientist it is clear that there is no consensus, there are no known answers, the conclusions put forward tend to go along with the theory but with many caveats.

And one caveat is that New Scientist is funded in great part by the income that big science stories of the day attract, I am not attributing any malfeasance to them but you know scientists and publishers have to pay their bills too.

I've been looking at this for a decade and no longer believe manmade global warming is the problem it is made out to be. If it is a problem it is much slower acting than is presented, if it is a problem we could fix it within a decade or a generation at most. I am more concerned about things like loss of insects (esp bees) which are vital to the environment and the havoc that GM crops are creating all over the world. Manmade global warming is widely promoted to take our eyes of a more important ball.

Now, I think you're being intentionally dense. You're conflating climate with weather and sense with nonsense. Not that you care, but just so that I'm clear to you.

Good night and hope you awaken with a surer footing on reality.

Now you have progressed from condescension to outright ad hominen attack, as you can't support your point of view with intelligent comment you lose the argument. And manmade global warming is an argument that can not be won except in hindsight so the best thing we can do is be sensible. Don't put so much crap in to our environment is number one, the tiny amounts of energy output of man compared with the sun, volcanoes etc is clearly way down the list of threats to the species or planet.

Apple knows that that a lot of their customers have bought into the the man-made global warming BS and is catering to that demographic. Nothing more. They know when they do meaningless gestures like this it helps build brand loyalty and therefore profits.

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Yes, I've seen those. There are other factors to consider. Relevant to your point, I suggest these simplified tutorials here and here. Be sure to read the linked background information. I can provide much more detailed and technical information when you're ready.

Sir (or ma'am), when was the last time someone called you a misinformed fool? Has it been more than 5 minutes? If not, then please accept my apologies for repeating the sentiment, but I have not seen such incredibly ignorant dribble since, well, since the last time I checked the internet, but that's not the point.

The point is that you should take your idiotic right-wing bullshit and stick it far, far up your ass because that is the best place for it.

Anyone want to know what a liberal is? Check out the above. No argument except to call everyone else stupid. Funny how they never do it to anyone's actual face, though I offer itistoday the opportunity, should he/she decide to accept.

I won't get into politics here, but let's just say I don't believe in man-made climate change, and this makes me want to NOT buy anything Apple. I'm sure the "greenies" will love them, but I'm not a "greenie".

I won't get into politics here, but let's just say I don't believe in man-made climate change, and this makes me want to NOT buy anything Apple. I'm sure the "greenies" will love them, but I'm not a "greenie".

I won't get into politics here, but let's just say I don't believe in man-made climate change, and this makes me want to NOT buy anything Apple. I'm sure the "greenies" will love them, but I'm not a "greenie".

This reply has nothing to do with politics, it's just common sense. Not to get too deep here but there's a balance which needs to be maintained for the earth to work. It exists throughout every aspect of the universe and within our bodies. Too much of anything without something to counter it is going to eventually put something out of whack. The earth is huge and has only been subject to the CO2 emissions of the industrial age for, lets say for practical purposes, 150 years. Even if it doesn't have an effect on you within your lifetime, you have to know that the extra CO2, and every other excess non-naturally occurring emission, is eventually going to take its toll. You're probably the type of person which also says... Why should I conserve gasoline? There's plenty to go around and we're not going to run out anytime soon. Ignorance is bliss.

Selfish is not a good way to go through life. Even if all the evidence isn't in and the jury is still out, what's wrong with being prudent? Have you ever done something in your lifetime "just in case" something happens?. Is it really going to hurt someone to lessen one's impact on the earth? Am I not seeing something here but will someone get hurt in this equation? Don't slam a company for actually trying to make a difference, regardless of their motivation. The world isn't getting any bigger to accommodate mankind's desire to keep multiplying, so resources will get used up and emissions are just going to increase.

This reply has nothing to do with politics, it's just common sense. Not to get too deep here but there's a balance which needs to be maintained for the earth to work. It exists throughout every aspect of the universe and within our bodies. Too much of anything without something to counter it is going to eventually put something out of whack. The earth is huge and has only been subject to the CO2 emissions of the industrial age for, lets say for practical purposes, 150 years. Even if it doesn't have an effect on you within your lifetime, you have to know that the extra CO2, and every other excess non-naturally occurring emission, is eventually going to take its toll. You're probably the type of person which also says... Why should I conserve gasoline? There's plenty to go around and we're not going to run out anytime soon. Ignorance is bliss.

Selfish is not a good way to go through life. Even if all the evidence isn't in and the jury is still out, what's wrong with being prudent? Have you ever done something in your lifetime "just in case" something happens?. Is it really going to hurt someone to lessen one's impact on the earth? Am I not seeing something here but will someone get hurt in this equation? Don't slam a company for actually trying to make a difference, regardless of their motivation. The world isn't getting any bigger to accommodate mankind's desire to keep multiplying, so resources will get used up and emissions are just going to increase.

Balance...get the picture?

Okay, I'm going to violate what I said previously...

Let's put something into perspective here: First, man's contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere is dwarfed by the CO2 emitted by rotting vegitation and rotting corpses. That, is dwarfed by the CO2 emitted by the oceans. There has not been one shred of single proof that absolutely points to any sort of cause and effect relationship of CO2 and the temperature of the Earth. However, there has been overwhelming evidence pointing to a cause and effect relationship of the role of the Sun, solar winds, the Earth's orbital cycles, etc. to the temperature of the Earth.

On top of that, CO2 is a marginal green house gas. The vast majority of the green house effect lies within water vapor. Combine that with how marginal, overall, the human contribution of CO2, and you have just about nothing. We are in no way shape or form causing ridiculous changes in the Earth's temperatures. As a matter of fact, its been reported that polar ice is actually thickening, not thinning. We're predicted to be at the very beginning of a long cooling period, based on solar cycles and the cycles of the earth's wobble on its axis and such. These are far more of an indicator of what long term trend the Earth is heading in than some questionable hypothesis that a marginal green house gas is somehow catastrophically changing our Earth. The Earth's temps have changed in huge swings over the course of its history, and this is nothing new. So why all the panic?

The Earth has seen much warmer and much cooler periods, yet life thrived. The polar bears were around in much warmer times and have survived, as have much of the animal kingdom we know today. On the contrary, not all of them survive drastic cooling periods quite as well. There is huge evidence that life actually flourished in warmer periods.

To make it point blank, in the scheme of Mother Nature, we human beings are very insignificant. Our contribution of anything to the atmosphere is in no way changing anything at all. You can't trust your highly trained local Meteorologist to forecast the weather further out than one or two days, so why would you trust a bunch of politicians backed by a bunch of scientists looking to receive funding in an otherwise looked over area of science to predict our weather for the next 100 years?

Remember the Ozone Layer scare? Guess what? It turns out to be something that's a natural phenomenon... Now, we got stuck with R-45 instead of the much better R-12 refrigerant because people just insisted that we were killing the Earth, and supposedly had science to prove it.

To just blindly think that we need to do something about it is naive. Leave Mother Nature alone. Every attempt green organizations have in rectifying something in nature have been short sighted and had adverse effects. Just leave it alone. Nature has a built-in self-repair mechanism, and it works much better than anything we've ever tried.

Does this mean I think it's okay to spew pollution into the atmosphere? Absolutely not. Pollution adversely affects our health. This is something we need to keep in check. Do I think pollution has a long term negative affect on the Earth's well being? No. Again, nature has a self-repair mechanism, and it'll heal itself.

Ever since this "Global Warming" stuff started making a splash in the late 1980's and early 1990's, I've looked at the claims with open eyes and an open mind. At one time, I was on the whole bandwagon of being greener, and was almost a member of Greenpeace. But, when I looked at all the evidence spewed by both sides, and used a little common sense to decipher what seems to better explain things and what makes more sense, the climate change theorists began to look either pretty stupid or having a political agenda. This whole ordeal has made me rethink the entire green movement and has opened my eyes that most of it is not well thought out and a cover for a larger political agenda. Even Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has publicly stated that the green movement has been hijacked by extremist who's agenda has more to do with class warfare.

Al Gore-hypocrite! Do something about the Chinese human rights abuse that makes your products firstly before your environmental BS. And China is the biggest environmental hazard on this planet anyway.

True about human rights but then again there are plenty of the USA's friends that are off the scale abusers. They have oil though most of them.

Well Chjna's carbon foot print is not a million miles different to the USA, however their population is. Thus the USA carbon footprint per capita is excessively high. Also, China is going through and industrial revolution like, you know, the west did 200 years ago. Seems a bit unreasonable to point the finger when the USA is far higher per capita and 200 years more advanced.

Climate theories should be viewed separate from politics. You have to be a tad blinkered to think that human activity has had no affect on global temperatures. I find it offensive that the opposition are presented as having equal evidence, it's like creationism all over again (don't get me started). Why is it those opposed to the generally accepted scientific belief are predominantly right wing and drive cars a lot then?

Anyone want to know what a liberal is? Check out the above. No argument except to call everyone else stupid. Funny how they never do it to anyone's actual face, though I offer itistoday the opportunity, should he/she decide to accept.

You wanna fight, punk? Anyone want to know what a conservative right-winger is? It's a stereotype, that's what it is, and the typical thing this stereotype does is spout the nonsense they've heard from Fox News at people, and then when someone with half a clue gets wind of it and calls them a fool (what else are they to call them?), they get all red-faced and whip out their shotgun. That's how they debate, that's how they prove their point. With a fist or a gun.

No, I won't say it to your face because if you happen to fit that stereotype my health insurance might not cover the damage that could result.

I'm terribly sorry sir (or madam) if I've offended you, but you offended me when you decided to forsake reality and spew vulgarities, hatred, and when you tell Apple to "grow up" because they're trying to protect the environment (you know, that place you unfortunately inhabit). When you do that I will call you a misinformed fool. Deal with it.

Quote:

No argument except to call everyone else stupid.

I readily admit that I did not make an attempt to argue with you, because I've argued with people who sound like you before. It's like arguing with the evangelical christians that preach at my school's campus, trying to convince passersby that God hates "gays, muslims, jews" and that we should all start working on worshipping Jesus and accepting him as our "personal lord and savior". You cannot argue with people like this, believe me, I've tried and have given up. They don't understand what logic or evidence means.

So no, sorry, I'm not going to indulge you and waste my time explaining to you why your statement "Socialist climate change theories remain highly controversial and much debated" is highly idiotic. You wouldn't listen anyway, or perhaps you'd decide that it was no longer "socialist" climate change theories but "fascist" climate change theories that are "highly controversial and much debated". Or are they theories supported by communists? Or Nazis? You never know these days with the right-wing nutjobs...

On the other hand, if I've misunderstood your statement, or you meant to say something else, please by all means, do elaborate. Perhaps you could start by explaining how these theories are "socialist" in nature, and then move on to explain how they are controversial. Keep in mind that I know they are controversial among people who don't specialize in the subject area. The issue of Santa Claus will always be controversial amongst 4 year olds. In other words, please demonstrate how they're controversial among those who do specialize in it.

Ah, so much nonsense that begs a response, but it's late and restraint is long overdue.

I'll conclude with this: no climatologists I'm aware of dispute your quoted statement above. While science can demonstrate the mechanism in nature, no science has demonstrated the equivalence for the human species. And ultimately, isn't life as we know and wish to preserve, the point?

Actually there is no evidence what so ever that manmade global warming is happening.

Quote:

lol It's just a cycle ... eh? Rush told you that i assume? ROFL

So you listen to Rush a lot. Fill us in on what he has been saying recently. In any event look at the so called science and the people involved in promoting global warming as a man made issue. The science, as they call it, is crap.

oh please. Channel 4 has been slammed for that rape of science, particularly the manipulation of the graph of dropping temperatures (over a short period and explained by industrial pollutants) cropped for effect. I would be fired and my career over if I tried such a stunt in my albeit less mainstream area of science. I am not going to repeat the controversy as it has been nicely pulled apart here:

I suspect, by the tone of your post, that if Apple had taken a right wing stance instead of "a leftist political position at the expense of alienating a good percentage of the buying public" you might not be so quick to dump on them.

I can't speak for the original poster but you don't help your cause by continuing the political part of the discussion. In any event this is an issue used by the left to scare people and that makes all the difference.

Quote:

IMHO climate change is a proven reality and even if we are not 100% sure of the cause,

Instead of having an opinion have a position based on facts.

Quote:

it is of such a critical nature that it is important for all of us to do whatever is under our control to do.

Even if global warming was real, no matter the cause, it is no where near a critical problem. Not even remotely as critical to mankind as disease, real polution, education or defective cultures.

Quote:

I applaud Apple in taking the action they have.

You applaud them for an incredibly stupid move? This is a very polarizing move that just isolates Apple to the fringes of society. If Apple truly believes that there position is correct then removing themselves from mainstream organizations isn't going to endear them to the general public.

Quote:

I'd like to think we would all put such an important issue above petty politics. Alas, I fear I'd be wrong to assume that.

The left adopted this mantra to scare people so it has always been political. Much of the so called science has been fabricated with the very intent to frighten the uneducated and much of the female population. After all when was the last time somebody from the right held a town hall meeting to tell everybody how bad little Johnnys future will be if global temps go up one degree on average. They don't do that because the evidence isn't clear and it isn't responsible behaviour.

What is really hilarious is the blank stares you get when you try to talk about variabilty in energy output from the Sun. Try to link that with this years very cool summer and you get all sorts of resistance because it does not blame mankind for the issue.

I'm open minded with respect to this issue but there is a huge problem with opportunist, leftist, idiots and other scum trying to promote these hidious spectcles of disaster some 100 years in the future as a way to gain power.